[Phil]

1. 1♥. I think its extreme and misleading to call this a balanced 22-23, but some would.

2. Can I 2♣ - 2♦ - 3N with a hand like this?

3. Completely obvious 2♣ opener.

3. Completely obvious 1♣ opener.

[MrAce]

1- I prefer to open 1♥ playing gazilli otherwise 2♣ . Even if pd response to 1♥ it will be messy without gazilli.My pd opens this 2♣

2- Definetely 2♣ for me, as Phil said 3 NT looks more appealing than 4♥.

3- 2♣, but we have to let partner know we opened it with tricks instead of loaded hcps. I open 2♣ and bid 4♠ over 2♦.

4- To me this is 1♣. I like the low path when suit is minor.

[ewleongusa]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-08, 15:04, said:

The first hand could be a choice from three:

♠A7
♥KQJ865
♦AK
♣K95

This is more likely to be a 2♣ opening, but then how do you treat it? Do you have a special sequence for this kind of hands?

♠A6
♥AKQT98
♦A6
♣K75

Finally two which are pretty similar:

♠AKJT9842
♥5
♦A8
♣A5

♠A7
♥5
♦AJ
♣AKT9xxxx

Can you elaborate why you would/wouldn't consider each of these hands a 2♣ opening bid? Would the conditions (vulnerability, seat, scoring, partner) affect your decision?

A strong 2C bid is defined as a balanced 22+ or a suit oriented hand that can take at least one trick below game on your own with about four defensive tricks. The first two hands are not a strong 2C bid. Clearly, if partner could contribute one trick for you game would not be cold.
If fact, in many cases you would need a little luck. However, if partner has a minimum response game would be more or less cold.
The third hand qualifies for a strong 2C bid because if you would expect to make at least nine tricks in spades.
The fourth hand doesn't qualify for a strong 2C bid because you can't make at least ten tricks in clubs on your own.

Eric Leong

[mtvesuvius]

Clear 2♣ on the first three. Clear 1♣ on the last IMO.

No rebid problems on the first two, and the third is just a powerhouse.

The fourth has no fear of being passed out in 1♣, and isn't enough for a 2♣ opening anyway.

[FrancesHinden]

I would open all of them at the 1-level unless I was playing Acol 2s (2H - 2S neg - 2NT on both the first two, a 2NT opening with a 6-card heart suit).

If I had no way of showing a forcing 3M rebid after 1M - 1NT I might think differently, but I do, so I don't.
I play 2C as game forcing (other than 2C - 2D - 2NT) and the heart hands are not worth driving to game opposite nothing.

The closest to a 2C opening is the spade hand which clearly is worth game, but it is sufficiently light on high cards that 1S feels more descriptive.

[blackshoe]

In Romex, the first two qualify for a 1NT opening (4-5 losers, 18-21 HCP, 6+ controls), the other two would be opened at the one level.

[fromageGB]

Some interesting differences of opinion.
For the first 2 hands I can't envisage making game if partner passed a 1 open, so as that is my definition of a 2♣ bid then these open 1♥. Any seat or vulnerability. You must have a GF continuation, though (I start with Gazzilli and if partner just signs off, bid game).

The third I would open 2♣ to avoid missing game, and all I want to know is whether partner has any tricks for the slam, so 2♣ is perfect. I would also open 2♣ if the ♠J was the 3.

The last hand would have me going into a trance for a while. I don't like 2♣ because I don't want to force to the 4 level, I don't like a gambling 3NT because partner will undoubtedly bid 4♣, so I will open 1♣, and see where it goes.

[Gerben42]

1st and 2nd hand: 1♥ unless you play 2♣ as GF or a semiforcing in a major.

3rd hand: This I would open 2♣. I have game in my hand.

4th hand: Okay 4♣ is no game but 9.5 tricks is too much for 1♣ so I open two.

[tolvyrj]

First hand is clear cut case, second one...ok depends on style; i would open 2C but then again thats me:). Fourth one is obviously not u lack both tricks and strength. Thrid one is not 2C opening; why not? because u hand lacks defence. U have 2 outside aces, what do u do when prd dbls 5H bid advocating weak hand and warning u not to bid anymore.?
Third hand is 1C opening and fourth hand is textbook namyats some sort.